PlantMolBiol(2016)91:727–740 DOI10.1007/s11103-016-0481-8 How plants handle multiple stresses: hormonal interactions underlying responses to abiotic stress and insect herbivory Duy Nguyen1 • Ivo Rieu1 • Celestina Mariani1 • Nicole M. van Dam1,2,3 Received:31October2015/Accepted:9April2016/Publishedonline:19April2016 (cid:2)TheAuthor(s)2016.ThisarticleispublishedwithopenaccessatSpringerlink.com Abstract Adaptive plant responses to specific abiotic involvement of signaling pathways in single stress respon- stresses or biotic agents are fine-tuned by a network of ses.Moreexperimentaldataonnon-modelplantandinsect hormonal signaling cascades, including abscisic acid species are needed to reveal general patterns and better (ABA), ethylene, jasmonic acid (JA) and salicylic acid. understand the molecular mechanisms allowing plants to Moreover, hormonal cross-talk modulates plant responses optimize their responses incomplex environments. to abiotic stresses and defenses against insect herbivores when they occur simultaneously. How such interactions Keywords Drought (cid:2) Flooding (cid:2) Herbivory (cid:2) Hormonal affect plant responses under multiple stresses, however, is cross-talk (cid:2) Induced resistance (cid:2) Stress responses less understood, even though this may frequently occur in natural environments. Here, we review our current knowl- Abbreviations edge on how hormonal signaling regulates abiotic stress ABF ABA-responsive element binding factor responsesanddefensesagainstinsects,anddiscussthefew AP2/ERF Apetala2/ethylene response factor recent studies that attempted to dissect hormonal interac- COI1 Coronatine insensitive1 tions occurring under simultaneous abiotic stress and her- CTR1 Constitutive triple response1 bivory. Based on this we hypothesize that drought stress EAR ERF-associated amphiphilic repression enhances insect resistance due to synergistic interactions EBF EIN3-binding F-box protein between JA and ABA signaling. Responses to flooding or EIL1 EIN3-like protein1 waterlogging involve ethylene signaling, which likely EIN2 Ethylene insensitive2 reduces plant resistance to chewing herbivores due to its EIN3 Ethylene insensitive3 negative cross-talk with JA. However, the outcome of JAZ Jasmonate-ZIM domain corepressor interactions between biotic and abiotic stress signaling is LAP Leucine aminopeptidase often plant and/or insect species-dependent and cannot LOX Lipoxygenase simply be predicted based on general knowledge on the NINJA Novel interactor of JAZ PDF1.2 Plant defensin PP2C Type 2C protein phosphatase & NicoleM.vanDam PR Pathogenesis-related [email protected] PYR/PYL/ Pyrabactin resistance1/PYR-like/ RCAR regulatory component of ABA receptor 1 MolecularPlantPhysiology,InstituteforWaterandWetland SCF Skp, Cullin, F-box containing Research(IWWR),RadboudUniversity,POBox9010, SnRK2 Sucrose non-fermenting1-related protein 6500GLNijmegen,TheNetherlands kinase2 protein 2 GermanCentreforIntegrativeBiodiversityResearch(iDiv) TPL Groucho/Tup1-type co-repressor Halle-Jena-Leipzig,DeutscherPlatz5e,04103Leipzig, Germany TOPLESS 3 InstituteofEcology,FriedrichSchillerUniversityJena, TPR TPL-related protein Dornburger-Str.159,07743Jena,Germany VSP Vegetative storage protein 123 728 PlantMolBiol(2016)91:727–740 Introduction Fig.1 Schematic overview of hormonal signaling. a A model ofc jasmonicacid(JA)signaling,adaptedfromPauwelsetal.(2010).In the absence of JA, JAZs recruit the co-repressor TPL andTPRs via Plants have to constantly cope with a suite of biotic and the EAR motif of the adaptor protein NINJA to suppress JA- responsivegeneexpression.ThiscanalsooccurdirectlyviatheJAZ’s abiotic stress factors. Their performance thus depends on EAR motif (Shyu et al. 2012). In the presence of JA, JA-isoleucine the ability to quickly perceive changes in the environment conjugatesareformedandfacilitatetheinteractionbetweenJAZsand and to express an adaptive response. Much effort has been SCFCOI1,amulti-proteinE3ubiquitinligasecomplex.Thispromotes made to understand the molecular mechanisms underlying JAZubiquitinationandsubsequentdegradationby26Sproteasomes, resulting in the release of NINJA-TPL complex and activation of plant adaptive responses because of their potential to basic helix-loop-helix MYC transcription factors (TFs) to regulate improve agricultural production under adverse conditions. JA-responsive genes. b A model for abscisic acid (ABA) signaling, Plantmolecularresponsestosingleabioticstresses,such adaptedfromCutleretal.(2010).IntheabsenceofABA,PP2Csare asdrought,soilflooding,highorlowtemperatures,aswell activetopreventSnRK2activity.InthepresenceofABA,PYR/PYL/ RCARs bind to and inhibit PP2Cs, which allows phosphorylated as to biotic interactions, such as insect herbivory and SnRK2s to accumulate and subsequently phosphorylate ABFs to pathogen attacks, have been gradually elucidated. These regulate ABA-responsive gene expression. c A model of ethylene responses are modulated by a complicated network of (ET)signaling,adaptedfromChoandYoo(2014).Intheabsenceof signaling pathways induced by a variety of small mole- ET, the negative regulator CTR1 binds to membrane-bound ET cules, including Ca2? signaling (Seybold et al. 2014), receptors (ETRs) and inactivate the positive regulator EIN2. More- over, the downstream primary TFs, EIN3 and EIL1, are constantly reactive oxygen and nitrogen species (Wang et al. 2013; subjected to proteasomal degradation guided by EBF1 and EBF2. Baxter et al. 2014) and phytohormones (Peleg and Blum- WhenEThasaccumulatedandbindstoETreceptors,theETR-CTR1 wald 2011; Pieterse et al. 2012; De Vleesschauwer et al. isinactivated.ThisleadstocleavageofC-terminalhalfofEIN2and itstranslocationintonucleustostabilizeEIN3byinactivatingEBFs. 2014; Kazan 2015). Hormones and hormonal cross-talk EIN3 then regulates expression of downstream ET-responsive AP2/ play an important role in the molecular mechanisms that ERFTFs,suchasERF1andORA59 optimizeplantresponsestostresseswhichcommonlyoccur simultaneouslyintheenvironment,suchasabioticstresses knowledge on how hormonal pathways regulate plant and herbivory. Over the years several reviews have dis- responses to single stresses. Then we discuss how inter- cussed cross-talk between defense-related hormonal path- actions between these pathways may modulate defense waysinplantschallengedbydifferentherbivores,different responses in plants under combined stress conditions, pathogens or combinations thereof (e.g. Pieterse et al. consideringthathormonalcross-talkmayservetooptimize 2002; Erb et al. 2008; De Vleesschauwer et al. 2014). plant performance in complex environments. Finally, we Independently, ecophysiologists acquired substantial will specify which testable hypotheses follow from our knowledge on the role of hormonal signaling pathways in current knowledge that may help to better understand the responsestoabioticstresses,suchasdrought,floodingand role of signaling interactions in plants under multiple shading (e.g. Peleg and Blumwald 2011; Voesenek and stresses. Bailey-Serres 2015).Since long, several ecological studies revealed that (induced) resistance to herbivores can be affected by simultaneously occurring abiotic stresses, such Regulation of induced plant responses to insect as drought (English-Loeb et al. 1997; Huberty and Denno herbivores 2004; Khan et al. 2010; Gutbrodt et al. 2011; Tariq et al. 2013).However,only recently there hasbeen anincreased In natural habitats, plants have to defend themselves interest to identify the molecular mechanisms underlying against herbivorous insects with different feeding strate- theseinteractiveeffects(Luetal.2015;DavilaOlivasetal. gies, including, but not limited to, leaf chewing beetles or 2016; Foyer et al. 2016; Nguyen et al. 2016). For this caterpillars, piercing-sucking thrips or spider mites, and reason, thisagoodmoment formergingthe knowledgeon phloem-sucking aphids or whiteflies. Plant defense mech- hormonalsignalinginabioticandbioticinducedresponses anisms may vary from morphological (e.g. trichomes, withtheaimtocometoaunifiedconceptualframeworkof waxes) tochemicaldefenses[e.g. alkaloids,glucosinolates how the signaling pathways induced by different stresses (GS), protease inhibitors (PIs)], which are often induced may interact. Thereby, we focus on the interactions upon herbivory (Schaller 2008). When insects are feeding between herbivore induced responses and water related on plants, herbivore associated molecular patterns stresses, specifically drought and flooding. Both drought (HAMPs) and endogenous damage associated molecular and soil flooding or waterlogging are common phenomena patterns (DAMPS) are released (Acevedo et al. 2015). innaturalandagriculturalecosystems,andthefrequencyof Upon perception of these cues, phytohormones, including their occurrence is expected to increase due to climate jasmonicacid(JA),abscisicacid(ABA)andethylene(ET), change(IPCC2013).Here,wefirstreviewthemostrecent accumulate to activate signaling cascades that regulate 123 PlantMolBiol(2016)91:727–740 729 123 730 PlantMolBiol(2016)91:727–740 downstream transcriptional responses (summarized in Fig. 1a–c). Among them, JA and particularly its most activeisoleucineconjugate(JA-Ile),aregenerallyaccepted as the core inducers of many herbivore-induced defenses (Howe and Schaller 2008; Tytgat et al. 2013; Wasternack and Hause 2013). JA-insensitive or deficient mutants, therefore, exhibit very low levels of resistance to a wide range of herbivorous insects from different orders (Thaler et al. 2002; Bodenhausen and Reymond 2007; Schweizer et al. 2013). Duetoherbivore-specificHAMPs(Acevedoetal.2015; Xuetal.2015),othersignalinghormonesinadditiontoJA are induced upon feeding to tailor the defenses against the attacker. The signal signature that is induced for a part is duetodifferencesinherbivorefeedingstrategies.Piercing- sucking insects, such as aphids, have a ‘stealthy feeding strategy’ (De Vos et al. 2005) that avoids massive cell damage. On the other hand, the salivary sheet lining their mandibles contains specific enzymes that interact with the cells along the stylet path (Foyer et al. 2016). Aphid Fig.2 Schematic representation of interactions between hormonal cascades regulating induced defenses against biotic agents (see text feeding thus induces a significantly different set of sig- and legend Fig.1 for further details and abbreviations). Insect naling pathways and transcripts than chewing herbivores, herbivoresinduceJA-dependentMYC2regulationofdefense-related thatcausemorecelldamageandpossessdifferentelicitors genes,whichisenahncedbyABAsignaling.Necrotrophicpathogens in their saliva (De Vos et al. 2005; Bidart-Bouzat and induceJA/ET-dependentsignalingtoregulateERF1andORA59and downstream defense-related genes. The two branches of defense Kliebenstein 2011). On the other hand, herbivore-induced responses mutually antagonize one another. GA and SA signaling signal signatures can also be species-specific within her- generallyinhibitJA-dependentdefenseresponses bivore feedingguilds. Forexample,feedingbycaterpillars ofManducasextainducestheaccumulationofJAandET, whereas Spodoptera exigua caterpillars induce JA and (Thaler and Bostock 2004; Bodenhausen and Reymond salicylic acid (SA) in Nicotiana attenuata (Diezel et al. 2007; Vos et al. 2013b; Dinh et al. 2013). Furthermore, 2009). In contrast, S. exigua induces JA and ET accumu- ABA is involved in signaling process inducing JA-depen- lation in maize (Zea mays) and Arabidopsis thaliana dentdefenseresponsesinsystemictissues(Erbetal.2009; (Schmelz et al. 2003; Rehrig et al. 2014), whereas Pieris Vos et al. 2013b). The synergistic interaction between JA rapaetriggersJAandABAlevelsinthelatterspecies(Vos andABAcanoccurviathetranscriptionfactor(TF)MYC2 et al. 2013b). Simultaneous SA and JA accumulation also and its homologs MYC3 and MYC4 in Arabidopsis occurs upon herbivory by the Colorado potato beetle (Fig. 2). ABA induces COI-dependent expression of (Leptinotarsa decemlineata) and the mealy bug MYCs, which induce plant resistance to insects by regu- (Phenacoccus solenopsis) on tomato plants (Solanum lating many wound/herbivore-responsive genes, e.g. VSPs, lycopersicum) (Chung et al. 2013; Zhang et al. 2015a). LOXs and glucosinolate biosynthetic genes (Lorenzo et al. Although not all hormones were measured in each study, 2004; Dombrecht et al. 2007; Schweizer et al. 2013). In this strongly suggests that plant hormonal responses to tomato, the ABA/JA/wounding-responsive expression of herbivores depend on the specific plant–insect interaction. LAPandthePIgenePIN2aredirectlyregulatedbyMYC2 Cross-talk between JA and other phytohormones has been orthologs, JAMYC2 and JAMYC10 (Pen˜a-Corte´s et al. proposed to fine-tune plant defense responses to specific 1995;Boteretal.2004).However,duetothestrongmutual attackers (Pieterse et al. 2012; Erb et al. 2012). antagonism between ABA and ET, and the fact that some JA-responsive defenses are mediated by ET (discussed below),logicallyABAalsonegativelyaffectssomeJA/ET- ABA in defense regulation dependent defenses, such as nicotine biosynthesis in tobaccoplants(Nicotianatabacum)(Lackmanetal.2011). ABAsynthesisandsignalingisrequiredforplants,suchas A key question is where in the signaling cascades Arabidopsis, tomato and N. attenuata, to fully activate interactions between JA and ABA occur. The requirement defenses and resistance against their herbivores; ABA ofnormalABAbiosynthesisforJAproduction(Adieetal. deficiency increases plant susceptibility to herbivory 2007), the COI-dependency of the ABA-induced MYC2 123 PlantMolBiol(2016)91:727–740 731 expression (Lorenzo et al. 2004) and the fact that methyl- involvement of ET in modulating herbivore/JA-induced jasmonate (MeJA) still induces LAP and PIN2 in ABA- defense responses also shows in nicotine biosynthesis. deficient mutants (Carrera and Prat 1998), suggest that the Defective ET signaling in N. attenuata, in one case, interactionoccursupstreamofJAsignaling.Indeed,JAand resulted in reduced basal nicotine contents but enhanced ABA mutually enhance their biosynthesis (Adie et al. inducibility of nicotine biosynthesis after M. sexta her- 2007; Fan et al. 2009; Brossa et al. 2011). Mechanistic bivory (von Dahl et al. 2007), but in other experiments, it details on such interaction, however, are still lacking. did not affect basal levels and attenuated JA-induced Interestingly, it has been shown that interactions may also nicotine response (Shoji et al. 2000; Winz and Baldwin occur more downstream. A mechanism similar to the 2001; Onkokesung et al. 2010a). Nevertheless, both maize suppression of JA-induced TFs by JAZ–NINJA–TPL was andN.attenuatawithcompromisedETsignalingaremore identified for the ABA-dependent TF ABI5 (ABA insen- susceptible to M. sexta and S. frugiperda, respectively, sitive5) in Arabidopsis. ABI5 binding proteins (AFPs) are demonstrating the role of ET in fortifying plant defenses NINJA homologs and contain the EAR motif to interact (Harfouche et al. 2006; Onkokesung et al. 2010a). On the with the corepressors TPL or TPRs for ABI5 inactivation other hand, ET signaling, via ERF1/ORA59 and their (Pauwels et al. 2010). Although the tested AFPs do not upstream TFs EIN3/EIL1 (Fig. 1c), also inhibits the JA/ interact with JAZ1, this similarity nevertheless suggests ABA-co-induced MYC2 and subsequently MYC2-medi- thattheJA–ABAinteractionmayexistatthisJAZ–NINJA ated defense-related genes in Arabidopsis (Lorenzo et al. connection, downstream of JA biosynthesis, dependent on 2004; Zhu et al. 2011; Song et al. 2014a). Consequently, the binding specificity of different JAZs to NINJA or disruptions of ET perception and signaling in etr1, ein2-1 ABPs. This is supported by the recent finding that andein3/eil1mutantsallincreaseArabidopsisresistanceto ZmJAZ14, a JAZ protein in maize, is involved in both JA thegeneralistinsectsS.exiguaandS.littoralis,whereasET and ABA signaling (Zhou et al. 2015). application results in plant susceptibility. ET signaling, however,doesnotinfluencetheresponsesandresistanceof ArabidopsistothespecialistsPlutellaxylostellaandPieris ET in defense regulation rapae (Stotz et al. 2000; Mewis et al. 2005; Bodenhausen and Reymond 2007; Song et al. 2014a). LikeJA,ETsignalinguponfeedingbyinsectherbivoresis Recent findings also shed light on the mechanism of common among plants. However, ET has very variable how these hormonal cascades interact (Fig. 2). Several JA effects on defense regulation, acting more as a modulator signalingrepressorJAZsbindtoandinactivateEIN3/EIL1 of herbivore-induced responses than a direct elicitor (von and recruit HDA6 (histone deacetylase6) to repress EIN3/ Dahl and Baldwin 2007). Very few plant defenses are EIL1-dependent transcription (Zhu et al. 2011). Upon directly regulated by ET. One known case is the induction herbivore-induced ET and JA accumulation, ET signaling of defensive 1-cysteine protease (Mir1-CP) against both stabilizes EIN3/EIL1 while JAZ removal by JA signaling chewing Spodoptera frugiperda and phloem-feeding disassociates HDA6-EIN3/EIL1 and activates EIN3/EIL1 Rhopalosiphum maidis in maize. JA also induces Mir1-CP to transcribe downstream ERF1/ORA59. Interestingly, the expressionuponS.frugiperdafeeding,whichisdependent ABA-inducible MYCs also physically interact with EIN3/ on ET signaling, since MeJA treatment had no effect on EIL1, which mutually inhibits their function. Moreover, Mir1-CP induction in maize plants with blocked ET sig- MYC2 indirectly promotes proteasomal degradation of naling (Ankala et al. 2009; Louis et al. 2015). In many EIN3 by enhancing EBF1 expression (Song et al. 2014a; cases, ET has been shown to modulate JA-mediated insect Zhang et al. 2014). This illustrates how the balance defenses,similartothewell-documentedET–JAsynergism between ABA and ET signaling fine-tunes JA-mediated in regulating defensive genes induced upon infestation by defenses induced by insect herbivory. necrotrophicpathogens,suchasPDF1.2andPR1,4and5, via their co-regulation of the AP2/ERF TFs ERF1 and ORA59(Lorenzoetal.2003;Pre´etal.2008).Forexample, SA antagonizes herbivore-induced defenses ET signaling contributes to the JA-mediated volatile emission upon S. exigua herbivory on maize or Bemisia SA signaling mediates defense responses to hemi(- tabaci infestation on Arabidopsis (Schmelz et al. 2003; biotrophic) pathogens (Derksen et al. 2013). This is Zhang et al. 2013). The wound-induced expression of achievedviaitsreceptorandregulatorNPR1(nonexpressor tomatoPIN2requiresbothintactJAandETpathways,but of PR genes1) and the action of two NPR1 homologs, compromising ET signaling does not affect the M. sexta- NPR3andNPR4,whicharealsoSAreceptorsandmediate increased PI transcript levels in N. attenuata (O’Donnell NPR1degradationinSA-concentration-dependentmanners et al. 1996; Onkokesung et al. 2010a). The complex (Kuai et al. 2015). In some cases, SA-induced defense 123 732 PlantMolBiol(2016)91:727–740 responses are effective against sedentary sucking insects, 2014). For example, GA signaling interacts with JA sig- such as aphids (Klingler et al. 2009; Zhang et al. 2015b). naling via the negative regulators DELLAs. DELLAs and SAaccumulationinhostplantscanbeinducedbyHAMPs JAZs directly bind and deactivate each other (Fig. 2; Hou and can also be exploited by insects to suppress JA-me- et al. 2013; Song et al. 2014b). In the presence of GA, diated defenses (Thaler et al. 2012; Caarls et al. 2015). DELLAs are degraded via the 26S proteasome, releasing Glucose oxidase in S. exigua oral secretion induces an SA JAZs to suppress MYC2 (Hou et al. 2010; Wild et al. burst in N. attenuata, which suppresses JA and ET accu- 2012). On the other hand, DELLAs are necessary to mulation (Diezel et al. 2009). Moreover, several insects attenuate S. exigua-induced JA accumulation in Ara- carry viruses or microbes that trigger SA accumulation. bidopsis, and consequently GA can promote JA biosyn- Tomato spotted wilt virus transmitted by thrips feeding thesis (Cheng et al. 2009; Lan et al. 2014). Moreover, the increases SA concentrations in Arabidopsis, resulting in DELLA protein RGA (repressor of GA1-3), binds to increasedperformanceandpreferenceofthripsforinfected MYC2; its removal thus increases MYC2 activity (Hong plants (Abe et al. 2012). Flagellin from Pseudomonas sp. et al. 2012). Another DELLA, RGL3 (RGA-like3), whose present on the mouth parts of L. decemlineata can induce expression is enhanced by JA in a MYC2-dependent SA accumulation in tomato leaves upon feeding, thereby manner, can competitively bind to JAZs and further suppressing JA-dependent defenses, such as PIs and increase MYC2 activity (Wild et al. 2012). This JA-GA polyphenol oxidases, and herbivore-induced resistance synergistic interaction plays a role in trichome initiation (Chung and Felton 2011; Chung et al. 2013). and sesquiterpene biosynthesis (Hong et al. 2012; Qi et al. The SA antagonism of JA-dependent defenses occurs 2014). Similarly, BRs, AUXs and CKs influence JA sig- downstream of JA biosynthesis and independently of the naling both positively and negatively in regulating COI1-JAZspathway.Itinhibitsdefensesmediatedbyboth responses to herbivores (Dervinis et al. 2010; Yang et al. ABA and ET signaling (Fig. 2). Disruption of SA accu- 2011; Meldau et al. 2011). mulation or NPR1 function thus increases resistance to In conclusion, interactions between hormonal signaling several chewing and sucking insects (Stotz et al. 2002; cascades help plants to fine-tune their defenses against a Mewis et al. 2005; Zarate et al. 2007). Cytosolic NPR1 specific attacker. Conversely, insects may have the ability activity is also a mediator of the SA–JA antagonism, to interfere with these hormonal interactions to suppress which, however, is bypassed if herbivores also induce ET defense responses to their benefit. accumulation (Spoel et al. 2003; Leon-Reyes et al. 2009; Van der Does et al. 2013). Moreover, SA leads to degra- dationoftheJA/ET-responsiveORA59andsuppressesJA/ Hormonal regulation of plant responses to abiotic ET-responsive GCC-box-containing genes, including stresses ORA59, by recruiting the SA-induced GRX480 (Glutare- doxin480) to their promoters. This inhibits the positive Due to its involvement in many developmental processes, transcription regulators class II TGAs thereby repressing such as shoot growth inhibition, stomatal movement, leaf JA/ET-induced responses (Zander et al. 2012, 2014; Van senescenceandprimaryrootgrowth,ABAisconsideredas derDoesetal.2013).LessisknownabouthowSAinhibits a master regulator of responses to abiotic stresses, such as JA/ABA-responsive defenses. Potential points of conver- drought, salt, heat and high light intensity (Fig. 3; Sharp gence in this interaction are WRKY TFs. WRKY62 and et al. 2004; Daszkowska-Golec and Szarejko 2013; Liang WRKY70 regulate the SA–JA antagonism in defense et al. 2014). JA, SA and BRs also interact with ABA to responses and ABA-responsive defense genes (Li et al. promote stomatal closure, prevent water loss during 2004;Mao etal.2007),whereasWRKY18,WRKY40 and osmotic stresses, and induce leaf senescence for resource WRKY60 are ABA-responsive and blocked by SA (Xu remobilization (Hossain et al. 2011; Miura et al. 2012; Qi et al. 2006; Chen et al. 2010). et al. 2015). Stomatal opening, on the other hand, is pro- moted by CKs and AUXs, while leaf senescence is inhib- ited by GAs, CKs and AUXs (Daszkowska-Golec and Growth hormones in defense regulation Szarejko2013;Jibranetal.2013).ETisalsoconsideredas a major inducer of leaf senescence (Kim et al. 2015), Recently, phytohormones such as gibberellins (GAs), whereas ABA and ET show a clear antagonism in regu- brassinosteroids (BRs), auxins (AUXs) and cytokinins lating stomatal movement (Tanaka et al. 2005) and shoot (CKs) have also been shown to modulate JA-mediated androotgrowthunderdrought(Fig. 3;SharpandLeNoble responses to herbivores (Figs. 2, 3), besides their involve- 2002; Sharp et al. 2004; Yin et al. 2015). Similarly, ABA ment in regulating defenses against pathogens (Naseem antagonizes ET in controlling flooding responses, such as andDandekar2012;Denance´ etal.2013;DeBruyneetal. shoot elongation, leaf hyponasty and adventitious root 123 PlantMolBiol(2016)91:727–740 733 Fig.3 Hormonal interactions regulating plant responses to abiotic defenses: ET induces defense responses to necrotrophic pathogens stresses and defenses against biotic agents. Arrow heads indicate a and some responses to insect herbivores but suppresses other insect positive interaction, whereas a T end, indicates an inhibitory effect. induced defenses. ABA and ET strongly antagonize each other in Abscisicacid(ABA) hasstrongsynergisticeffectsonJA-dependent many responses, but both induce leaf senescence. Interactions defenses,whilejasmonicacid(JA)promotesABA-mediatedstomatal between JA and gibberellic acid (GA) or auxin (AUX) to mediate closure and leaf senescence, but not primary root growth. Dashed growth-defensebalancearealsoindicated arrowsindicatethemixedeffectsofethylene(ET)onJA-dependent formation (Voesenek and Bailey-Serres 2015). The ET- herbivorymayalsofollowthisstrategy.Thebestillustrated mediated responses to flooding as well as shading, on the hormonal interaction to regulate growth-defense tradeoffs other hand, are synergistically regulated by GAs, BRs and is between JA and GA. Similar to their interaction in AUXs (Cox et al. 2006; Gommers et al. 2013; van Veen regulating defenses, JA also antagonizes GA-dependent et al. 2013;PierikandTesterink 2014;Ayano et al. 2014). growthresponsesviaJAZs-DELLAs.IntheabsenceofJA, These insights demonstrate that plant responses to abiotic ArabidopsisJAZ9bindstheDELLAproteinRGA,thereby stresses and defense responses are controlled by the same preventing it from inhibiting the growth promoting TF interactive hormonal network. PIF3 (phytochrome-interacting factor3). Upon herbivory, JA induces JAZ degradation and delays GA-mediated DELLA degradation, allowing DELLAs to inhibit GA- Hormonal interactions regulate growth-defense dependent plant growth responses (Yang et al. 2012). tradeoffs Furthermore, JA in concert with ET repress cell cycle processes and expansion of leaf cells by suppressing the The simultaneous roles of hormones in plant development cell expansion enhancers, AUXs. Conversely, AUXs were and defense led to the view that they interact to prioritize proposed as repressors of JA synthesis and JA/ET-depen- resources towards growth or defense. This is a relevant dent nicotine response. AUXs and JA, however, synergis- concept when considering abiotic-biotic stress interaction, tically constrain N. attenuata regrowth after M. sexta asabioticstressusuallyseverelyimpairsplantgrowth.The herbivory (Shi et al. 2006; Onkokesung et al. 2010b; Noir probability to survive under adverse conditions may et al. 2013; Machado et al. 2013). ABA and JA signaling increase if limited resources are efficiently allocated to also synergistically suppress plant growth and yield under tolerate abiotic stresses or to defend valuable tissues drought stress (Kim et al. 2009; Harb et al. 2010). On the against herbivores (Van Dam and Baldwin 2001; Skirycz other hand, ABA signaling antagonizes nicotine biosyn- and Inze´ 2010; Atkinson and Urwin 2012; Vos et al. thesisinN.tabacumrootsviaPYL4,anABAreceptorthat 2013a). There is substantial evidence that this happens in controls root metabolic responses to drought and drought case of pathogen attack (Denance´ et al. 2013; Huot et al. resistance;whereasJAsuppressesPYL4expressioninroots 2014); and the regulation of the growth-defense tradeoff but enhances it in leaves (Fig. 2; Lackman et al. 2011; when plants are under combined abiotic stress and insect Pizzio et al. 2013; Gonza´lez-Guzma´n et al. 2014). These 123 734 PlantMolBiol(2016)91:727–740 examples show that the growth-defense balance is tightly brassicae moth preference to lay eggs on drought-stressed regulated by a sophisticated network of hormonal cross- plants but no differences in larval performance compared talk. to those on well-watered plants. Interestingly, ABA accu- Furthermore, the growth-defense balance can also be mulation was observed upon herbivory but not in drought- controlled by master mediators that regulate multiple hor- stressed plants, possibly due to the intermittent drought monal cascades. For example, the Arabidopsis CML42 stress regime with recovery periods, during which ABA (calmodulin-like protein42) suppresses both JA-dependent catabolism may be induced (Wang 2002; Fleta-Soriano insect resistance and drought-responsive ABA accumula- et al. 2015). In contrast, drought enhanced resistance of tion; and the rice WRKY70 induces JA but represses GA Solanum dulcamara plants to S. exigua larvae (Nguyen biosynthesis andsignaling (Vadassery et al. 2012;Li et al. et al. 2016). Both dought and herbivory induced ABA and 2015). However, the WRKY70-dependent prioritization of JAaccumulationinS.dulcamara.Transcriptomicanalyses defenses over growth leads to resistance to the stem borer showed drought further enhanced several herbivore-in- Chilo suppressalis but susceptibility to the brown plan- duced defense-related responses, such as terpenoid thopper Nilaparvata lugens, suggesting that defense pri- biosynthesis and PIs (Nguyen et al. 2016). Similarly, oritization is species-specific (Li et al. 2015). drought increased leaf ABA and JA concentrations, JA- dependent defense and Medicago truncatula plant resis- tance to the pea aphids Acyrthosiphon pisum (Gou et al. Hormonal regulation of defense responses 2016).Therefore,thesynergisticinteractionbetween ABA under combined stresses and JA signaling is suggested to play an important role in regulating plant defense under drought. This is supported Despite our extensive knowledge on hormonal regulatory by the finding that ABA signaling is required for the full pathways and their interactions, predicting plant responses activation of VOC emission and JA-responsive direct and phenotypes under combined biotic and abiotic stress defensesinN.attenuata(Dinhetal.2013).Silencingofan remains difficult. Hormonal cascades may interact in non- ABA catabolism suppressor, NaHER1 (herbivore elicitor- additive manners and the results may enhance plant toler- regulated1), in N. attenuata resulted in reduced levels of ance/resistance to one stress but not to another (Atkinson thesedefenseresponsesuponherbivorybyM.sextaaswell and Urwin 2012; Stam et al. 2014; Suzuki et al. 2014; asplantresistance.Moreover,NaHER1-silencedplantsare Foyer et al. 2016). Also at the transcriptional level, stress alsodrought-sensitive,suggestingthatNaHER1servesasa combinations evoke responses that are unique or unpre- connection between responses to the two stresses. dictable from the responses to single stresses even if the Ontheotherhand,theremaybemechanismsunderlying points of convergence are known (Rasmussen et al. 2013; plant increased resistance to herbivores under drought that Atkinson et al. 2013). Abiotic stresses, such as drought, are independent of the ABA-JA signaling interaction. In salt, heat or flooding, have been found to exert both posi- maize, drought and root herbivory by Diabrotica virgifera tiveandnegativeinfluencesonresistancetopathogensand synergisticallyenhancelevelsofABAandABA-dependent insect herbivores (DeLucia et al. 2012; Suzuki et al. 2014; defense gene transcripts in the leaves and resistance to the Ramegowda and Senthil-Kumar 2015). For example, the leaf herbivore Spodoptera littoralis (Erb et al. 2011). strong JA-ABA synergism in many stress responses sug- However, leaf water loss, but not the induced ABA level gests that drought may promote plant resistance to herbi- itself, was strongly correlated to the resistance. Therefore, vores. However, drought increases defense responses and hydraulic changes induced by drought and root herbivory render plants resistant to insect herbivores in some cases, were suggested to play a role in inducing ABA/JA-inde- butreducesdefensesandresistanceinothers(English-Loeb pendentsignalingthatincreasesresistancetoabove-ground et al. 1997; Huberty and Denno 2004; Khan et al. 2010; herbivores. Gutbrodtetal.2011;Tariqetal.2013;Nguyenetal.2016). Interestingly,thereismuchlessknowledgeontheeffect Recently, a few studies have tried to dissect hormonal of soil flooding on herbivore resistance, possibly because interactions occurring under simultaneous abiotic stress most model plants are crops and drought is more com- and herbivory. In Brassica oleracea plants, drought and monly recognized as a problem in production systems Mamestra brassicae herbivory interactively regulate the around the world than flooding or waterlogging. Only emission of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) as an recently Lu et al. (2015) studied the hormonal interaction indirect defense (Weldegergis et al. 2015). While drought between flooding and root herbivory in rice. The study alone induces SA accumulation and reduces the emissions showed, however, that hormonal responses to root her- of several VOCs, it also reduces herbivore-induced JA bivory or artificial wounding was not altered by flooding. accumulation and consequently alters the herbivore-in- In S. dulcamara, soil flooding increased ABA, but not JA, duced emissions of these VOCs. This resulted in M. levels in the leaves and suppressed many transcriptional 123 PlantMolBiol(2016)91:727–740 735 responses involved in primary and secondary metabolism, validate the ecological effects of these molecular interac- including defense-related responses. These changes, how- tions. Given the common co-occurrence of abiotic and ever, did not affect the plant resistance to S. exigua larvae biotic stresses, the response to stress combination is likely (Nguyen et al. 2016). tobeunderstrongnaturalselection.Thus,wearguethatthe These insights, though not always as expected before- seeminglylowlevelofconservationintheeffectofabiotic hand, are invaluable to understand how plants fine-tune stressonherbivoredefenses,dependingonplantandinsect their responses to specific combinations of stress condi- species, does not represent random output of the signaling tions. Based on what we know about the interactions network. Rather, it may be the consequence of divergent between hormones and a few experimental studies, we choices in prioritization and thus resource allocation that suggest that drought in general may enhance resistance onlyappearuponcombinedstressapplication.Recognition becauseofthesynergisticeffectofABAandJAsignaling. ofgeneral patterns thenrequiresavailabilityofalarger set Drought and herbivory both significantly reduce plant ofdata.Preferably,experimentsshouldbecarriedoutusing performance but when a drought period is followed by plant species thriving in both wet and dry habitats as well herbivory,thenegativeeffectismorethanadditive(Davila as with a diverse natural herbivore community. This will Olivasetal.2016).Thusitmaybefunctionalforadrought- allow us to ‘learn from nature’ whether plants can be stressed plant to reduce additional damage by increasing selected to handle multiple stresses at the same time while herbivore defenses. It should be stressed that the resulting maintaining a high performance. effectontheherbivoremaydiffer,dependingonitslevelof host plant specialization or feeding strategy (Foyer et al. Acknowledgments This project is funded by a grant (844.10.001) in the ALW-Ecogenomics program from the Netherlands Organisa- 2016). On the other hand, flooding or waterlogging elicits tionforScientificResearch(NWO).NMvDgratefullyacknowledges the production of ET. The interaction of ET with herbi- the support of the German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity vore-induced responses is not as uniform as that found for Research(iDiv)Halle-Jena-LeipzigfundedbytheGermanResearch ABA. Hence it can be expected that flooding has a neutral Foundation(FZT118). ornegativeeffectonplantresistance.Itislikelythatplants Authors contribution Duy Nguyen took the lead in writing this surrounded by water (temporarily) do not receive as many review, with active contributions of Nicole M. van Dam, Ivo Rieu, herbivores as a plant on dry land. Therefore, it is con- andCelestinaMarianiduringthewritingprocess. ceivablethatfloodedplantsmayincreasetheirperformance Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the more if they invest in overcoming the negative effects of Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://crea hypoxia, for example by producing aerenchymous adven- tivecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, titious roots (Dawood et al. 2016). distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriatecredittotheoriginalauthor(s)andthesource,providea linkto the Creative Commons license, andindicate ifchanges were made. Conclusions Simultaneously occurring stresses may compromise plant References hormonal homeostasis. If this leads to a misregulation of stress responses, it may result in lower plant survival or Abe H, Tomitaka Y, Shimoda T, Seo S, Sakurai T, Kugimiya S, yield reduction. Therefore, a better understanding of these TsudaS,KobayashiM(2012)Antagonisticplantdefensesystem regulated by phytohormones assists interactions among vector hormonal interactions is essential to attain resilient and insect, thrips and a tospovirus. Plant Cell Physiol 53:204–212. ‘multitasking’cropplantsthatcanperformwellinadverse doi:10.1093/pcp/pcr173 and variable environments. However, hormonal interac- AcevedoFE,Rivera-VegaLJ,ChungSH,RayS,FeltonGW(2015) tions under combined stresses cannot be simply inferred Cues from chewing insects—the intersection of DAMPs, HAMPs, MAMPs and effectors. Curr Opin Plant Biol from experiments applying single stresses. Thus, more 26:80–86.doi:10.1016/j.pbi.2015.05.029 studies on plants responses to multiple and simultaneous Adie BAT, Pe´rez-Pe´rez J, Pe´rez-Pe´rez MM, Godoy M, Sa´nchez- stresses, especially abiotic stresses and insect herbivory, SerranoJ-J,SchmelzEA,SolanoR(2007)ABAisanessential areneededtogaininsightsonhowhormonestrulyinteract signalforplantresistancetopathogensaffectingJAbiosynthesis and the activation of defenses in Arabidopsis. Plant Cell under such—more natural—conditions. Furthermore, 19:1665–1681.doi:10.1105/tpc.106.048041 downstream changes induced by multiple stresses should AnkalaA,LutheDS,WilliamsWP,WilkinsonJR(2009)Integration be investigated by untargeted high-throughput approaches, of ethylene and jasmonic acid signaling pathways in the such as transcriptomics, proteomics or metabolomics to expression of maize defense protein Mir1-CP. Mol Plant MicrobeInteract22:1555–1564.doi:10.1094/MPMI-22-12-1555 obtain a broad and precise view of the regulatory and Atkinson NJ, Urwin PE (2012) The interaction of plant biotic and phenotypicconsequencesofhormonalinteractions.Finally, abiotic stresses: from genes to the field. J Exp Bot plant performance or resistance should be assessed to 63:3523–3543.doi:10.1093/jxb/ers100 123 736 PlantMolBiol(2016)91:727–740 Atkinson NJ, Lilley CJ, Urwin PE (2013) Identification of genes Davila Olivas NH, Coolen S, Huang P, Severing E, van Verk MC, involved in the response of Arabidopsis to simultaneous biotic HickmanR,WittenbergAHJ,deVosM,PrinsM,vanLoonJJA, andabioticstresses.PlantPhysiol162:2028–2041.doi:10.1104/ Aarts MGM, van Wees SCM, Pieterse CMJ, Dicke M (2016) pp.113.222372 Effect of prior drought and pathogen stress on Arabidopsis Ayano M, Kani T, Kojima M, Sakakibara H, Kitaoka T, Kuroha T, transcriptome changes to caterpillar herbivory. New Phytol. Angeles-Shim RB, Kitano H, Nagai K, Ashikari M (2014) doi:10.1111/nph.13847 Gibberellin biosynthesis andsignal transduction is essential for Dawood T, Yang X, Visser EJW, te Beek TAH, Kensche PR, internode elongation in deepwater rice. Plant Cell Environ CristescuSM,LeeS,Flokova´ K,NguyenD,MarianiC,RieuI 37:2313–2324.doi:10.1111/pce.12377 (2016) A co-opted hormonal cascade activates dormant adven- Baxter A, Mittler R, Suzuki N (2014) ROS as key players in plant titious root primordia upon flooding in Solanum dulcamara. stress signalling. J Exp Bot 65:1229–1240. doi:10.1093/jxb/ PlantPhysiol.doi:10.1104/pp.15.00773 ert375 De Bruyne L, Ho¨fte M, De Vleesschauwer D (2014) Connecting Bidart-Bouzat MG, Kliebenstein D (2011) An ecological genomic growthanddefense:theemergingrolesofbrassinosteroids and approach challenging the paradigm of differential plant gibberellins in plant innate immunity. Mol Plant 7:943–959. responses to specialist versus generalist insect herbivores. doi:10.1093/mp/ssu050 Oecologia167:677–689.doi:10.1007/s00442-011-2015-z De Vleesschauwer D, Xu J, Ho¨fte M (2014) Making sense of Bodenhausen N, Reymond P (2007) Signaling pathways controlling hormone-mediated defense networking: from rice to Arabidop- inducedresistancetoinsectherbivoresinArabidopsis.MolPlant sis.FrontPlantSci5:611.doi:10.3389/fpls.2014.00611 MicrobeInteract20:1406–1420.doi:10.1094/MPMI-20-11-1406 DeVosM,VanOostenVR,VanPoeckeRMP,VanPeltJA,PozoMJ, BoterM,Ru´ız-RiveroO,AbdeenA,PratS(2004)ConservedMYC MuellerMJ,BuchalaAJ,MetrauxJP,VanLoonLC,DickeM, transcriptionfactorsplayakeyroleinjasmonatesignalingboth PieterseCMJ(2005)Signalsignatureandtranscriptomechanges in tomato and Arabidopsis. Genes Dev 18:1577–1591. doi:10. of Arabidopsis during pathogen and insect attack. Mol Plant 1101/gad.297704 MicrobeInteract18:923–937 Brossa R, Lo´pez-Carbonell M, Jubany-Mar´ı T, Alegre L (2011) DeLuciaEH,NabityPD,ZavalaJA,BerenbaumMR(2012)Climate Interplaybetweenabscisicacidandjasmonicacidanditsrolein change: resetting plant-insect interactions. Plant Physiol water-oxidativestressinwild-type,ABA-deficient,JA-deficient, 160:1677–1685.doi:10.1104/pp.112.204750 andascorbate-deficientArabidopsisplants.JPlantGrowthRegul Denance´ N,Sa´nchez-ValletA,GoffnerD,MolinaA(2013)Disease 30:322–333.doi:10.1007/s00344-011-9194-z resistance or growth: the role of plant hormones in balancing Caarls L, Pieterse CMJ, Van Wees SCM (2015) How salicylic acid immune responses and fitness costs. Front Plant Sci 4:155. takestranscriptionalcontroloverjasmonicacidsignaling.Front doi:10.3389/fpls.2013.00155 PlantSci6:170.doi:10.3389/fpls.2015.00170 DerksenH,RampitschC,DaayfF(2013)Signalingcross-talkinplant CarreraE,PratS(1998)ExpressionoftheArabidopsisabi1-1mutant disease resistance. Plant Sci 207:79–87. doi:10.1016/j.plantsci. allele inhibits proteinase inhibitor wound-induction in tomato. 2013.03.004 PlantJ15:765–771.doi:10.1046/j.1365-313X.1998.00261.x Dervinis C, Frost CJ, Lawrence SD, Novak NG, Davis JM (2010) Chen H, Lai Z, Shi J, Xiao Y, Chen Z, Xu X (2010) Roles of Cytokinin primes plant responses to wounding and reduces Arabidopsis WRKY18, WRKY40 and WRKY60 transcription insect performance. J Plant Growth Regul 29:289–296. doi:10. factors in plant responses to abscisic acid and abiotic stress. 1007/s00344-009-9135-2 BMCPlantBiol10:281.doi:10.1186/1471-2229-10-281 Diezel C, von Dahl CC, Gaquerel E, Baldwin IT (2009) Different ChengH,SongS,XiaoL,SooHM,ChengZ,XieD,PengJ(2009) lepidopteranelicitorsaccountforcross-talkinherbivory-induced Gibberellin acts throughjasmonate tocontroltheexpression of phytohormone signaling. Plant Physiol 150:1576–1586. doi:10. MYB21, MYB24, and MYB57 to promote stamen filament 1104/pp.109.139550 growth in Arabidopsis. PLoS Genet 5:e1000440. doi:10.1371/ DinhST,BaldwinIT,GalisI(2013)TheHERBIVOREELICITOR- journal.pgen.1000440 REGULATED1geneenhancesabscisicacidlevelsanddefenses Cho Y-H, Yoo S-D (2014) Novel connections and gaps in ethylene against herbivores in Nicotiana attenuata plants. Plant Physiol signalingfromtheERmembranetothenucleus.FrontPlantSci 162:2106–2124.doi:10.1104/pp.113.221150 5:733.doi:10.3389/fpls.2014.00733 DombrechtB,XueGP,SpragueSJ,KirkegaardJA,RossJJ,ReidJB, Chung SH, Felton GW (2011) Specificity of induced resistance in FittGP,SewelamN,SchenkPM,MannersJM,KazanK(2007) tomato against specialist lepidopteran and coleopteran species. MYC2 differentially modulates diverse jasmonate-dependent JChemEcol37:378–386.doi:10.1007/s10886-011-9937-0 functionsinArabidopsis.PlantCell19:2225–2245.doi:10.1105/ Chung SH, Rosa C, Scully ED, Peiffer M, Tooker JF, Hoover K, tpc.106.048017 LutheDS,FeltonGW(2013)Herbivoreexploitsorallysecreted English-Loeb G, Stout MJ, Duffey SS (1997) Drought stress in bacteria to suppress plant defenses. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA tomatoes: changes in plant chemistry and potential nonlinear 110:15728–15733.doi:10.1073/pnas.1308867110 consequencesforinsectherbivores.Oikos79:456–468 Cox MCH, Peeters AJM, Voesenek LACJ (2006) The stimulating Erb M, Ton J, Degenhardt J, Turlings TCJ (2008) Interactions effects of ethylene and auxin on petiole elongation and on between arthropod-induced aboveground and belowground hyponastic curvature are independent processes in submerged defenses in plants. Plant Physiol 146:867–874. doi:10.1104/pp. Rumexpalustris.PlantCellEnviron29:282–290 107.112169 Cutler SR, Rodriguez PL, Finkelstein RR, Abrams SR (2010) ErbM,Gordon-WeeksR,Flors V,Caman˜esG,Turlings TCJ,TonJ Abscisic acid: emergence of a core signaling network. Annu (2009) Belowground ABA boosts aboveground production of Rev Plant Biol 61:651–679. doi:10.1146/annurev-arplant- DIMBOAandprimesinductionofchlorogenicacidinmaize.Plant 042809-112122 SignalBehav4:636–638.doi:10.1111/j.1365-313X.2009.03868.x Daszkowska-Golec A, Szarejko I (2013) Open or close the gate— ErbM,Ko¨llnerTG,DegenhardtJ,ZwahlenC,HibbardBE,Turlings stomata action under the control of phytohormones in drought TCJ (2011) The role of abscisic acid and water stress in root stress conditions. Front Plant Sci 4:138. doi:10.3389/fpls.2013. herbivore-induced leaf resistance. New Phytol 189:308–320. 00138 doi:10.1111/j.1469-8137.2010.03450.x 123
Description: